6 out of 7 is not too bad.7 accepted for traffic was reported earlier in the week. I guess a lot of them haven't even started mileage accumulation yet.
And still the puzzling absence of any 3 car units continues.
6 out of 7 is not too bad.7 accepted for traffic was reported earlier in the week. I guess a lot of them haven't even started mileage accumulation yet.
And still the puzzling absence of any 3 car units continues.
they have had these things in storage for the best part of a year.7 accepted for traffic was reported earlier in the week. I guess a lot of them haven't even started mileage accumulation yet.
And still the puzzling absence of any 3 car units continues.
You've also got to match up trained drivers and guards to the new units. The logistics of doing that all day every day are not straightforward. In fact it gets increasingly difficult as more units are introduced until you have at least 75% trained.
They very much are in a rush and a fortune has so far been spent. A very respectable 100% of Norwich guards along with over 90% of Norwich drivers are now fully trained. Cambridge drivers are priority now ready for the bimode Stansted launch in December. What with this, Artisan training, rebuilding Crown Point, fault free running & getting ORR/Network Rail approval for the first Stadler fleet in the UK makes the task in hand a massive one.they have had these things in storage for the best part of a year.
not exactly in any rush,are they?
........it will be made to work...well,adequately enough to complete the task required, mostly on the job.
Actually 5-6 today.3-4 out in service today(rode on 2) seem to be having a better day for rolling stock than yesterday. Nice units.
And when something goes wrong because your training was only 'adequate' ? No point in trying to explain what is really involved here if it's just going to be dismissed as excuses.
When you're at war, things are rather different. Doing something dangerous is part of the job, combat in any form is life-threatening! People aren't exactly going to die from using a 156 over a 755, or a replacement bus service for that matter. Yes, I think the time taken to get new rolling stock fleets in place in this country is poor even considering the work involved, but not only is this actually one of the better examples (the units were in service the same calendar year they were expected to be and several are now working without being recalled for safety-critical design defects), but there is just simply no need for wartime levels of productivity. Everybody should work acceptable length days without long-term effects on their health and to deliver anything for a remotely reasonable price under those conditions takes an order of magnitude longer than 'the good old days'. If the 755/3s still haven't been approved by christmas, I will happily revise that statement, but for now, they're not actually doing so bad, frustrating as it is.if the RAF adopted the "safety first" mentality for everything,the whole bloody fleet would be grounded!
airframe.....check
engines..check
EW systems..check
weapons systems..check
problem with IFF....sortie still needs doing.
just have to risk it and notify control and other countries radar operators(friendly/coalition ones) of the extra plane they're likely to see...and pray they don't open fire!
Command need targets x,y,z neutralised in this order on this date-battlefield logistics are not rigid either and subject to change because of hostile forces tactics,inclement weather etc, but mechanical/personnel unpreparedness is not one of factors in play.crew and equipment are expected to be ready to go whatever
that's also a potentially a life threatening situation!!!
When you're at war, things are rather different. Doing something dangerous is part of the job, combat in any form is life-threatening! People aren't exactly going to die from using a 156 over a 755, or a replacement bus service for that matter. Yes, I think the time taken to get new rolling stock fleets in place in this country is poor even considering the work involved, but not only is this actually one of the better examples (the units were in service the same calendar year they were expected to be and several are now working without being recalled for safety-critical design defects), but there is just simply no need for wartime levels of productivity. Everybody should work acceptable length days without long-term effects on their health and to deliver anything for a remotely reasonable price under those conditions takes an order of magnitude longer than 'the good old days'. If the 755/3s still haven't been approved by christmas, I will happily revise that statement, but for now, they're not actually doing so bad, frustrating as it is.
We are not in the RAF we are the railway. If everything has to be grounded so be it whether it's a month or a year.if the RAF adopted the "safety first" mentality for everything,the whole bloody fleet would be grounded!
We are not in the RAF we are the railway.
And I think currently, within the RAF, if they found an aircraft had a fault they would ground it, pending rectification, everyone seems to be blaming GA, but of course 'on test' the units still belong to Stadler, and run by ROG, and not handed over / accepted by GA.
To be fair to GA, I somewhat disagree about that - I think Q2 2019 was a perfectly reasonable expectation to get some units into service. Replacing all the non-PRM stock by the deadline is another matter entirely, but you had to be seen to be trying to do it, the bid would likely never have been accepted otherwise. You could argue that choosing an unproven manufacturer for the UK and a manufacturer with a proven bad track record for delivering new designs in a timely manner, was questionable, but realistically, it is no fault of GA's bid team the Aventra line is so far behind schedule. A few months' slippage would have been anticipated I'm sure, but more than a year? Not likely.The problem with GA is the timescale proposed by the bid management, without adequately consulting their operations team for the introduction in service of two unproven fleets was completely unrealistic.
Not saying that Stadler are without fault but anyone who had experience of similar projects that I spoke to when the timescale was outlined felt that they wouldn't come close to achieving it.
It's funny you should talk about the RAF, because whilst GA did have mostly former bid managers in their executive team at the start of the franchise, the engineering director and some of the managers in that department were parachuted in from the airplane industry with no rail experience who may well have worked in the RAF!
To be fair to GA, I somewhat disagree about that - I think Q2 2019 was a perfectly reasonable expectation to get some units into service. Replacing all the non-PRM stock by the deadline is another matter entirely, but you had to be seen to be trying to do it, the bid would likely never have been accepted otherwise. You could argue that choosing an unproven manufacturer for the UK and a manufacturer with a proven bad track record for delivering new designs in a timely manner, was questionable, but realistically, it is no fault of GA's bid team the Aventra line is so far behind schedule. A few months' slippage would have been anticipated I'm sure, but more than a year? Not likely.
My main complaint about the GA bid is not the timescales at all, it's just the numbers, fleet size, unit vehicle length and so on. Expecting new trains (even if there are too many, the wrong size etc) to arrive 30 months after they were ordered doesn't seem unrealistic, surely?
I did... Seriously I don't think anyone here thought there would be any new trains in April. Trains almost never enter service on time except for follow on orders. But for an unproven manufacturer Stadler are coping well, even if there is some blame culture. They are far beyond Bombardier which frankly at the moment is a joke and I don't think anyone can disagree with that. If you ignore the bid promises, we aren't doing too badly with the Stadlers, its the Aventras that are so backlogged in Derby and they can't get their 'proverbial' together. The rollout has been very slow and painful so far, more for the Aventra side.Nobody said it was an unrealistic expectation to get some units into service
They were willing to promise something daring to win it. If they hadn't, they would've lost the bid to an operator who did and that operator would have been given a long term franchise contract off the bat.Yes you can argue GA had to propose something radical to win the bid, but if that is what franchised railways are about now, the bidders propose something ridiculous and unrealistic to win a bid and then quickly jump ship afterwards and leave the operations team whose protests were previously ignored to take the flack for the pup that they were sold, then the industry is fundamentally broken.
Not suggesting the bid needed to be radical, it just needed to demonstrate that something was being done about meeting PRM-TSI by 31-12-19. Rather than retrofit all the existing stock, they took the option to replace it instead. They'd have had to have done at least one or the other, even if it ultimately transpires nobody will be ready for that deadline.
As for allowing a margin for error with the unproven supplier, there are 755/4s in service and plenty of 745s undergoing testing and training. Where are the 720s?
Not on railways at least. Roadways...You do not play fast and loose with the safety of the travelling public.
There is the possibility a very limited service may start at Colchester via the up & down Goods Roads in/out of platform 1. This however will have to be operated by 4 or 8-car EMUs only.